On Thu, 3 Mar 2016 13:58:30 +0100
Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 03.03.2016 um 13:47 schrieb RW:
> > On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 23:25:17 +0100
> > Reindl Harald wrote:
> >> your expectation that the mass-test corpus can reproduce the whole
> >> real world is fundamentally broken
> >
> > Unbelievable.
> >
> > If you think your bad experience with FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_2 is too
> > unusual for QA ever to pick-up on, then what are you complaining
> > about?
> >
> > Your previous position was that it's normal for the rule to do more
> > harm than good, and it's such an obviously bad idea that it
> > shouldn't even have been tried in the first place
>
> for deep-header-inspection it's an obviously bad idea as well as
> RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO and there is no "previous position" - i said that
> from the first moment on and ANYTHING doing HELO/PTR tests on any
> foreign received header does more harm than good
my point is that you can't have it both ways. You've claimed that:
1) The rule is an obviously bad idea, that causes a lot of FPs
and usually does more harm than good.
2) That adding more mail to the QA corpora wont help.
If (1) is true then it implies the corpora don't adequately reflect
mainstream email. In that case (2) is preposterous.
